View Poll Results: Is 23 pounds considered heavy for a WW short travel XC bike?
- 94. You may not vote on this poll
Is 23 pounds considered heavy for a modern WW short travel XC bike?
I would really like your opinion.
EDIT: That would be a short travel FS XC bike.
Last edited by Mountain Cycle Shawn; 08-28-2013 at 01:47 PM.
Re: Is 23 pounds considered heavy for a WW short travel XC bike?
As always, it depends. My XL 100mm FS 29er is exactly 23lbs. Sometimes lighter, sometimes heavier. I think 23lbs is light for that bike.
I'm a mountain bike guide in southwest Utah
I see, this is going to come down to what people own, in order to justify it.
I just built up a 19" (size L) carbon hardtail and it came to 23lbs. It's all XT with some pretty decent parts. I didn't go crazy and could have gone XTR to save a couple of pounds.
I would consider an FS at 23lbs to be VERY light....but then again my FS is about 29lbs
FS, HT, or Rigid?
SS or Geared?
6r, 7r, 9r?
If we are talking a rigid, ss, 6r, then 23lbs is not a weight weenie at all.
If we are talking a FS, Geared, 9r, then 23lbs is very light.
Shawn, if you ask a stupid question, you will probably get a stupid answer.
"They Call Me Bone'z"
My sette ace was 21lbs before i made a carbon hard tail out of it that turned out to be 18lbs.
i think 23 for any 26 is easily done even without any crazy "exotic" brands.
I had a 22 lb FS bike for XC racing back in '98, before there were any of the modern superlight components available, so I would say it's very easy to build a sub 23 lb FS bike.
We also haven't confirmed if we're talking 29ers or not. I see a few references to 26-inch platforms which are easier to build WW.
I wouldn't say it was considered heavy... wouldn't say it was light either though and certainly isn't WW.
Last edited by roaringboy; 08-29-2013 at 09:02 AM.
I would say that a 23lb FS 29er is most likely a weight weenie bike. Most FS 29ers that you can buy are over that 23lb mark. The sworks stumpy is over 25lbs the sworks epic is 23. So theoretically someone would have to drop weight off of those bikes to get under 23.
Is 23lbs the lightest? no. But I wouldnt consider it heavy.
I'd say 23 lbs, is better than average, but not weight weenie light.
My 06 rush lefty is about 30lbs and its a 26er. Maybe that's why I am trolling for ideas on weight loss.
IMO 23lbs is not heavy for a 29er f/s (say 100mm) bike. In the old days a sub 24lbs 26" dualie was a light bike, but the goal posts are always moving.
IMO for a 29er f/s non-race-day-only bike, 24lbs (11kg) or less is what you could call a light bike and weight weenie begins somewhere sub 22lbs (10kg).
By non-race-day-only I mean it is that weight and has tyres with tread, and components that you can crash... Something you could ride on trails etc.
But again, the goal posts will move soon as 1x11 drive trains, carbon wheels etc become common place/cheaper.
22lbs will be a common 'light' 29er f/s bike.
Only my opinion, but currently anything under 22lbs requires a hefty initial outlay (stock bike) or clever components and tuning where weight is the focus, so I would call it weight weenie.
Last edited by purdyboy; 10-21-2013 at 10:03 PM.
Reason: spelling etc
I think 23 pounds is a good starting point for a light weight
Hmm, I think you are a bit aggressive on the 22 lb mark as the starting point for WW. I'm running an Sworks Epic 29er which I've moved to 1X10, have replaced most carbon parts with even lighter carbon parts, carbon saddle, foam grips and the tires are about as light as you can get without slicks. This size L bike (which also has a carbon rear triangle) is just under 22 lbs.
Originally Posted by purdyboy
I suspect I could alter a few more things, but I guesstimate only 50-70g worth of additional savings.
If my bike is just starting into WW territory, you are very strict! :-)
I think I'd lean toward John here, with 23 lbs starting to show Weight Weenie-ism, especially on a ready-to-ride, FS, 29er.
The question in my opinion is the wrong question. If you're 5 foot tall and riding a small size frame, then sure weight can be made lighter. If you're 6+ foot tall and riding an extra large frame, then the weight will be higher.
Weight weenie'ism is a personal goal that individuals drive at. This is driven by what's available, at what cost, at what strength. The idea that someone else can come along and tell me or anyone else what is/what isn't 'fit' to be classed as weight weenie'ism is a ridiculous attempt to cock-fight.
My XL FS 29er is exactly 23lbs. Carbon main triangle, aluminum rear. Carbon rims, rocket ron tires (tubeless), carbon handlebar, stem and seatpost. SRAM XX. I've swapped out for lighter foam grips and a heavier Ergon saddle. I consider this bike every day/race weight. Beyond going to stupid tires and XX1, I don't see how I could go a whole lot lighter. I'd say less than 22lbs is definitely weight weenie territory for a bike like this. I've had mine down to 22.75lbs btw just by swapping to said stupid tires.
I'm a mountain bike guide in southwest Utah
Not trying to be a snob or strict :-) as my bike is on the border of 23/24lbs.
Originally Posted by phlegm
I totally agree that up to now 23lb would be into WW territory for that type of bike - and it still is for large bikes/riders. Anything 24 lbs and under for a trail worthy FS 29er is light.
Whilst 22lbs seems strict right now for true WW, I guess it kind of anticipates the direction for 2014. I mean, Specialized now has a production FS 29er claimed at 9.5kg (20.9lbs)... Sure it's mega $$$, but it's stock, comes with a warranty and can be ridden all day. For 2014 a 22lb bike might require expensive parts, but nothing truly boutique or uber exotic, not by WW standards.
Also, my friends bikeshop recently built up a 7.3kg 'Open' carbon hardtail w/- Lefty fork for a wealthy client... Man, it was nice and bikes like that tend to skew your reality a bit :-)
23 lbs is in the acceptable range for a FS 29er. Not true WW, but I wouldn't call it heavy either. If it were a 26er, then it's heavy.
I had a 2012 Epic 29er that was just under 21.5lbs with Eggbeater pedals, Sram XX (1x10), Rocket Ron 2.25" tires, formula brakes, and non wheenie seat post/bars/stem.
I'm going to challenge you on that weight Briscoe, but sounds like that bike is gone.
Originally Posted by briscoelab
My 2011 (L) is down to 21.36 pounds, but that includes several WW modifications. To confirm your 2012, without many WW changes, is about the same? I'd love to see a few pictures on the scale.
I'll post pics later. There are a couple threads around showing it.
Nothing on it was true WW, except for the eggbeater pedals. But, everything was light.
Roval carbon wheels
Syntace f109 stem
Enve sweep bar
ESI chunky grips
Sram xx 1x10.
Sworks single ring crank (34)
Xx 11-36 cassette
Thomson masterpiece seat post
Eggbeater 11 to pedals
Formula r1 brakes
Ti bolts all around
Selle Italia SLR saddle
King Ti cage
KCNC ti front skewer
Rocket Ron 2.25" tires/ fast trak sworks/ maxxis Ikon
Ah, now I understand. From your earlier post I thought it was mostly stock, but many of those bits are non-stock, and it wouldn't have been 1X10 if you bought an Epic in 2012. (?)
Looks like a great bike.
honestly, who cares? do you enjoy riding your bike? if you have fun on your bike it doesn't matter how many grams you shave. if all the weight weenies weren't such weenies and lifted some weights every now and than, 2lb on a bike wouldn't be the end of the world
Yea, I bought the frame and fork... built everything else up. Nothing super WW on it, but all the little things add up. 20g here.... 40g there. Loved that bike! Hope to get another one this coming season.
So, just to clarify, WW is like a hobby, and a challenge for some of us. Has nothing to do with overall fitness - no need to insult us.
Originally Posted by obs08
If you don't care about the topic, then Captain Obvious recommends not reading and posting in this sub-forum.
Are we talking about pedals included? I see a bunch of people posting weights without pedals. I understand it when manufacturers do it because pedals are so interchangeable and they are trying to compare themselves to others, but a bike is pretty hard to ride without pedals. If it is your own personal steed, list the weight with pedals.
I am at 23.25 pounds with my 2013 Sworks Epic 29 with pedals. The cassette is the SRAM 1030 cassette but everything else is pretty nice. It is not a race day only bike, and I know I can make it lighter, I just don't really care. I guess that is why I am not a true weight weenie.
Frame - 2013 Sworks Epic L
Fork - Fox CTD 100mm
Shifter - 10 sp SLX
RD - XT w/ clutch
Tires - Racing Ralph w/ Snake Skin
Wheels - Roval Control SL
Saddle - Fizik Tundra w/ carbon rails
Grips - ESI chunky
Stem - Syntace 109
Post - Ritchey Superlogic
Bars - Easton EC70
Brakes - MTS
Cranks - XX1 w/ 32T
Cassete - SRAM 1030
Pedals - Xpedo
I know I should drop the 1030 cassette, but I don't know if I want to go full XX1 or just wait until I have some more use out of the 1030 and just get a 1080 cassette.
Agreed, weight posts without pedals are an irritant for me, unless of course the poster rides without pedals, at which point I'd instantly give them +rep.
In my opinion, "bike weight" should be reported "as ridden" excluding the saddle bag, its contents and water bottles.
It should include pedals (duh), water bottle cages, computer and mount, etc.
Comparing weights is annoying exercise in "where's Waldo" when folks go rogue and shoot for the lowest possible figure through component omission.
23lbs is not a heavy bike but I don't think it falls into WW world, unless it's a L FS.
I consider my 26lbs med, fs, am bike heavy. But it does what it needs to.
I think WW is the best ones budget can do knocking off weight with the result of lower than normal weights. For some reason, I don't think someone buying a stock bike at say 20lbs is a WW but someone trying to get their bike down to that weight (or lower) is. That makes sense? As phlegm says...hobby.
I am a gram counter lol where there is no compromise to any part of my bikes, in performance and function. But at my other bike weights some may argue lol
Originally Posted by tooclosetosee
Im interested in bikes that are ridden. As such, even though Im a weight weenie (really really bad... I compare titanium bolts and use nylon bolts too and know the weight of the paint), I would much rather see weights of built bikes complete as ridden. I ride with a computer, so why wouldnt i be interested in which is lightest? Pedals are a total conundrum. Eggbeater 11's are light but they seem to eat themselves up here in the Pacific NW mud. XTR pedals are 300g, but they just don't stop working and have a very positive connection. The only time I'm thinking "huh." is when people include water bottle cages. I cant conceive of drinking form a water bottle on the bike... even my camelbak mouthpeice is disgustingly filthy after an hour of solid riding. You guys must ingest a lot of dirt and mud
Lets compare bike weights "as ridden", and include size information.
To answer the original question, I've built an XL FS bike with pedals and its 23.2 lbs after a lot of weight weenie work. Short of adding some too-fragile parts, Im really excited.
This 22.7 pound FS 26er was built with nothing that had SpecialitesTA or Tune on it.
"Life is way too short to own anything crappy"
Good post, and agreed. We should also call out 26" vs 29 as another reference point. (You didn't mention yours, BTW.)
Originally Posted by Visceral
Good point... mine is an XL 29er...
Ibis Ripley black XL frame
Toupe Pro seat
XTR trail brakes
Light Bicycle/DT240 wheels
Schwalbe RoRo 2.25
Rockshox SID RCT3 120mm 51 offset
A bunch of aftermarket black Ti fasteners
^^Well how much does it weight?
23.2 lbs - a few posts earlier.
What else were you expecting? And what is the problem with that?
Originally Posted by Mountain Cycle Shawn
What else does one use as a frame of reference for something that is completely subjective? Chances are, most people build their bike according to what they see as acceptable in terms of weight, performance, strength, and cost.
15mm is a second-best solution to a problem that was already solved.
The assumption you make in your post in that all Weight Weenies are 9 stone weaklings. That argument is just wrong. Weight weenism has nothing to do with how big/small a rider you are - it's about driving the weight of your bike down to an acceptable (for you) safe level. This is why it's wrong to come up with such daft statements about what is/isn't in the 'range' of a weight weenie bike. An extra large frame fitting a 6+ footer is inevitably going to be heavier than an extra small frame fitting an under 5 footer. The logic of this thread argues that a 6+ footer could not be a weight weenie (or at least has a harder time being one) versus a 5 foot, 9 stone rider.
Originally Posted by obs08
By r1Gel in forum 29er Bikes
Last Post: 07-24-2013, 08:33 PM
By ripper. in forum Downhill - Freeride
Last Post: 06-11-2013, 12:22 AM
By carverboy in forum 27.5
Last Post: 04-16-2013, 02:54 PM
By Torwood in forum All Mountain
Last Post: 01-28-2013, 03:01 PM
By steveopevo in forum General Discussion
Last Post: 10-21-2012, 07:52 AM